All in the Family featured the curmudgeonly Archie Bunker. Archie was television’s most famous grouch, blunt, blustering, straightforward and untouched by the PC crowd. He was the archetype of the conservative male. Michael desprately tried to reeducate him, but he persisted in his breviloquence.

Looking back at the last 40 years, we realize: ARCHIE WAS RIGHT!

7/26/2010

This started playing in my head as soon as I started reading this article.

It happens almost every year, someone, normally its a bus load of Japanese tourists, but not always, makes the mistake of thinking Yellowstone National Park is a petting zoo. The park is special to me, I used to live there, so I can speak with some authority on this. Every visitor gets a hand full of papers when they drive through the gate. Mostly these are pamphlets on park attractions. Most of these have a warning on them: "Don't disturb the wildlife".

The park hands these warnings out and posts signs reminding visitors that wildlife is in fact wild. Some people just don't get it. They have to try to pet the animals or pretend that they are an National Geographic photographer, or Jane Goodall or something. When the park service closes hiking trails due to bear activity, they do stuff like ignore the closing and hike the trail anyway. I have a funny story about that, remind me to share it sometime. They have to go check out wolf kill sites. They like to try to see why all the cow elk are circled looking out. That moose looks so tame, I think I'll get a picture of me petting it. True statistic: in 1950 most of the rattlesnake bites reported to the park service, were located on the ankle or calf. In 1994 most snake bites where located on the face, neck and upper torso. Did rattlesnakes learn to jump higher in 54 years? No tourists just got dumber. In the 50's snake encounters were the result of not seeing the snake and stepping on or near it. In the 90's snake bites were the result of SEEING the snake and getting down on the ground close to it to take a picture. Yet another proof of the infallibility of biological evolution.

BTW, I don't count snake encounters as proof that a person is a total moron. I've been bitten once and had several near misses myself. All of them accidental, if I see a snake its shoot first, collect the tail latter. Then again, I have thousands of hours of time spent in the outdoors in wild locations. I should point out, I've never been bitten on the face while taking a picture of a rattlesnake getting ready to strike.

Here is a video of Cathy Hayes and her summer vacation to Yellowstone:

Cathy is a school teacher, so her IQ is somewhat in doubt to begin with. She decided that "do not disturb the wildlife" means: "go ahead and chase a buffalo across the parking lot". After all buffalo are known for their enjoyment of fun loving games like tag. They so miss the days when the Indians used to chase them across the plains. It would be wrong to just leave them alone. The real kicker comes when someone decided that chasing wasn't enough and they wanted to get that extra bit of playground humor and threw a stick at the buffalo. After being chased across the parking lot, the stick must have been too much like the old days of Indians and arrows and the buffalo decided to run off the pests.

7/16/2010

As a boy grows into a man he learns about Candy Store. At first the candy store is something he knows happens to exist. It's really not important in his life, after all they look goofy, smell funny, act funny and aren't very good at playing army or ball. He hears about Candy Store, but why bother? Something happens as he gets older, the talk form adults about Candy Store starts to get interesting.

At first he hears about Dad's Candy Store, how they met, what Dad liked about the Store, and what the Store liked about Dad. There are stories about the purchase transaction negotiations and about how exciting the day was when they signed the purchase paper. The lesson learned is, this is what works for getting a Candy Store. The boy goes to church and learns about the importance of signing the purchase paper before you get into the Store. He learns that he can only ever have that first Candy Store for the rest of his life. The lesson learned is he better pick carefully.

The boy gets older and he realizes that he REALLY NEEDS a visit to the Candy Store. So he starts window shopping. He knows the rules, no sampling the candy unless he buys the store first, and a man can only have one store in his life. He spends all his spare time and money checking out Candy Stores. He gets to know them. They look funny, act funny, smell funny aren't any good at sports and he can't get enough.

He finds one that his parents agree is an excellent Candy Store. It's got a solid foundation, a reputation for sturdiness, and a good roof. Most importantly to the boy, he saw a glimpse of some truffles and can't wait for a taste. The boy enters into earnest negotiations to buy it. Eventually they reach a bargain. He agrees to only shop at the store, and spend all that he has in time, money and energy on its up keep. The Store agrees to supply the candy.

Purchase day comes, they sign the papers and all their friends and family are happy for them. Finally its time to sample some candy. It's awkward at first, no one has tried this recipe before, which is great, as far as the boy is concerned, but awkward for the candy maker. There were some difficulties unwrapping the candy. Who knew the packaging had so many hidden clasps? Even that is fun for the boy. He gets the candy, its good. He knows he likes it and looks forward to more tastes.

Time goes on. The boy invests his time, money and life into the store. The Candy Store is closed most of the time. Not only that, but there are whole sections of shelves that he can't select candy from. It gets to the point where the shop is only open every fifth Thursday and all that is available is stale milk chocolate miniatures which are handed over with poor service and a snarl. A little variety would be appreciated but the candy maker insists on only using granny wrappers on the candy, because doing something different would be "uncomfortable". Meanwhile the store makes more demands even though its closed.

The man knows that he has been cheated. He can't get out of the deal. The purchase papers are signed. He learns that other men get to shop from all the shelves in a variety of different stores, whenever they want. This sounds fantastic to him. How can it be? All he wants is some nicely wrapped truffles and a little juicy fruit on a regular basis. He can't get that, even though he played by all the rules. The players ignore the rules of the church but get all the candy they want. It's not fair.

He learns what the Players are doing. It boils down to being a more manly man and working on yourself. He learns that Candy Stores are more generous with the goodies when they think the man is attractive to other Stores. The man learns not to ask, beg or cry as a way of getting candy. After all it didn't work before. He learns what does work and does that instead.

Candy Stores are against men learning how to get the candy. The candy store wants an indentured servant, not a eager and dedicated customer. If men know what works, they will do that instead of paying for a new paint job or sweeping up in the kitchen.

Arielle,

I got started on this topic because of you and Hedi. I think its interesting to apply the concept of "Game" to marriage. Christian men were created as men first. They chose to become Christians. The same with Christian women. The basic facts of human sexuality and attractiveness don't change because of Christianity. Christian sex develops a spiritual component as well as the physical one. As far as I can tell your basic position is that men should do without adequate sex and "master their lust". I've provided you with direct quotes from the Bible that say differently.

The fact is that certain behavior on the part of men encourages their women to want sexual intimacy. I can see no Biblical reason for men not encouraging this. If men doing the dishes turned wives into nymphomaniacs, husbands would have dishpan hands and a great big contented smile on their face. Men being more domesticated isn't what elicits the hot pants scenario in women. Men being more manly does. If you're a guy and need more sex, the most logical thing is to do what works, not what women say they want. Most guys learn that what women say, and what they mean, and what will actually work are seldom the same thing. The best option for a man is to ignore what the women says and wait and see what actually happens.

70% of what we say is non-verbal, 20% of what we say is tone; leaving 10% for the actual words to convey meaning. If a man says: "Honey I need a blow job", the wife will process that bit of information in her head. If his tone is whinny, she will filter the message accordingly. If his non-verbal body language is limp, defeated, desperate and wimpy, that will convey further meaning. What he is saying is; "I need sexual intimacy". What she is hearing is: I'm a whinny, wimp of a boy-child, I'd like a little nooky, but I'm not likely to get it because I'm desperate because no women finds me attractive enough to invest 15 min of her time on my pleasure. She is a female animal. Nothing in her biology makes her want to mate with a weak example of the male sex. This holds true even if she is a christian married to a christian man.

Same man and women. The man has been being manly. He approaches his women confidently. He has done some service for her that she likes. He has killed the big nasty spider that was on her counter. The oil is changed in her car (which reminds me...). He is wearing the clothes she bought him for his birthday and the cologne she likes. He has a plan, the kids are going to grandmas till Sunday. He takes mom and kids to grandmas Friday night. Instead of going home they go to a nice restaurant, then a hotel. She wants to know whats going on. He informs her that they are staying the weekend or until the manager throws them out for having wild, loud monkey sex. She hasn't packed anything. He hands her a little box and tells her its all she'll need to wear.

In which scenario is the man most likely to get his blow job?

If you said the second, you now understand why Christian men are interested in how/if game works better than non-game. If a women wants a man to help out around the house vs strut around the house, all she has to do is make mad passionate love to him when he picks up his socks and does a load of laundry. When he asks, "what brought this on"? Tell him that it gets your juices following when he helps out with the chores. Next time he helps out reward him the same way. Keep repeating the cycle of great sex as a reward for making you happy and he'll work himself to death for you with a smile on his face.

7/13/2010

True confession time: I normally just read the "game" post at Vox's and smile to myself. That's as far as it goes for me. I have no interest in scoring with college co-eds or nailing the newly divorced. I smile because I can remember a time that I did or sad something that was very "game" but in all reality I was just trying to communicate that I wasn't interested.

My personal history is pretty simple. If I thought a girl was attractive, I asked her out. That statement is true from 7th grade right up until I proposed to Mrs. Ipsa. In all that time I was turned down one time in Jr. High, one time in High School, once in college, and one time in after I started working. That's it. Turn down number one and two, was because her father said she was too young (different girls), number three had the hots for some other guy; they married two years latter, number four was a gal I met in a professional class who said she was just got engaged, I just said' "oh that's fine" and gave her a big smile. At the end of the week, she took me aside and asked to talk to me. She showed me the ring and told me the story and how it was getting sized to fit her on Monday and that's why she wasn't wearing it when I asked her out. I guess she felt bad that she was taken.

That's four strike outs from 13 to 25. Basically I had a date every weekend that I wanted one until after college. Notice I said date, not slept with. I remember one girl that I thought was very hot, that I took home after less than an hour. She was a drag and I wasn't interested if putting up with her. That's what dating was to me, looks good = ask her out, had fun = ask her out again, girl is a drag = dump now. No sense in wasting time on women you don't enjoy. As far as looks quality, most were average girl next door types but there were two actresses, a model/rodeo queen and a Ms Hawaii runner up mixed in there as well.

For me the dating "game" ended the day I said "I do". I was off the market and no longer looking, so the "how to" of "getting the girl", no longer interests me. For better or worse, I "have her". So the game posts are more humor to me than anything.

Guys like sex. We need sex. The only thing we know we'd like more of in this life is sex. This is true of Christian guys as well as PUA's. Ladies, if your man isn't saying something like, "women I'm only human, we did it four times today and 5 yesterday, let me get some sleep", then yes, your man would like to be getting it more often too.

I never would have found this blog if it hadn't been for Vox: Married Man Sex Life. This is "Game" applied to marriage. I read some of his stuff yesterday. He's not a christian but he claims that he and his wife were each others first and that they are monogamously married. Here is a sample:

In general I find Roissy to be an entertaining writer and he is perhaps the best describer of the value of the Alpha = Female Attraction link and I have found that quite useful in learning that facet. However I am obviously in disagreement of his disdain for the Beta Traits and as such any advice he gives on LTRs is usually wrong and may as well be designed to destroy the relationship. PUA Game and Married Game are worlds apart.

The change is often commented on across many blogs, but why is that so common? And try not to just say "Betaization", the question is why does that happen... what is the cause of it?

Warning the blog its self is not always Safe for Work, images are mostly PG-13 and R, no XXX that I found.

Guys take a look. He recommends a balance between alpha and beta characteristics as the best way to have good sex with your wife. By the way he defines good married sex as "doing it like rabbits" with lots of passion and variety. I think most of the men would go along with that definition. Laddies, take a gander as well, would some of the things he recommends spice it up a bit for you too? Let your man know. Don't deceive yourself women, christian married men are still men, and we were created with the same sexual instincts and needs as PUA's.

7/09/2010

I come by my love for fishing genetically. My granddad started taking me fishing when I was still in training pants. I don't remember how many times we went fishing together but I remember fishing with him. His last fishing trip was to the pond on his farm. He took his only (at that time) grandson (me). I caught a black crappie. There was never a prouder man, nor apparently a bigger fish ever caught in the history of fishing. If there was a bigger one, it was not a grander one, not in his eyes.

That was on the weekend. Granddad had been on layoff from work and he had been feeling poorly. Because he was laid off his insurance wouldn't cover him and if he didn't go back to work he couldn't draw his pension or disability if he was real sick. Monday he was called back and worked his one full shift. Then he went to the doctor. Lung cancer. That can happen when you start smoking at 5. He was dead in days. All of that happened 34 years ago, last week.

Res Jr.'s real life name is the same as my granddad. Because, I remember and honor him still. Granddad was the best fisherman to ever live. I say that because no kid throwing rocks, kicking his feet, breaking bottles or dropping the anchor in the bottom of the boat ever stopped him catching fish. No amount of dumb kid behavior ever interfered with his joy of fishing. He loved having me fish with him. All he needed was a cane pole a can of worms and his little fishing buddy.

Today Res Jr. and I ditched the girls and got in the truck for a drive. The little guy likes to fish. What this means is he likes to watch daddy fish. So last year for his birthday I bought him a pole and a reel. Not a kiddie one either, a real honest to goodness ultralite panfish setup. He's got to use it before. Mostly to get it tangled in the weeds. When that has happened we just call it a day, because its not fun for him anymore. He gets such a kick out of fishing that I don't think it matters when we leave, just as long as he got to come.

Today we got to our spot, daddy rigged up the line, daddy put the worm on, daddy cast it out. Jr. reeled it back in. This is a big accomplishment for him. This is the fist time he as worked the reel. I was proud and had high expectations. Except, just as soon as I'd throw it out, he'd reel it back. I couldn't even get my fly rod outfitted. This was frustrating to daddy. Fish were jumping all over the pond. Jr. hadn't caught one in 3 casts. That was frustrating to him. With about 8 ft of line still in the water and the bobber floating free, we gave up on the worm and left it there.

We walked around to the other side to try the fly rod. Daddy managed to kill some time and land 3 nice rainbows. Jr. loved it. This was what he came for. The fishing slowed where we were at and so we moved back to the other side. About then I noticed that the bobber would go down and come up. There was no doubt in my mind the fish has swallowed the hook. So I made ready for the big event.

I acted like nothing was up. Just like another man did 34 years ago. I handed the rod over with the instruction to "reel it in". Just as he started to crank he cried, "its stuck daddy, its stuck!". "Is it now?", I asked. The fish made a run for it and the pole started bouncing like a kangaroo doing jumping jacks. "It's a fish daddy, a FISH!!!". I don't know who was more excited him or me. "Reel it in"! I ordered. "I'm doing it, I'm doing it daddy!".

Somebody, (a real big dumbo) who shall go without being named to protect his identity, had set the drag way to lite. So the reeling it part was much more dramatic than might have otherwise occurred. I swear the way he was swinging the rod back and forth I thought he was going to throw it in with the fish. That would have made me mad, because I knew that if the rod went in, I was going to have to make a 2hr ride home soaking wet. There was no way we were going to miss that fish, even if I had to take a swim.

We got our whale landed. It was a 11 inch rainbow. "We caught a fish daddy", he said. "No you caught it", I corrected. "I caught a fish daddy!" he shouted. "Yes you did" I told him. If you go to the Wyoming Game and Fish web page where they keep the records, you will find no fish such as this listed. There has never been a better trout caught here or anyplace else. In the history of the world only two fish have ever been this grand. I was privileged to be there when they both were caught.

7/07/2010

"The people of the U.S. owe their Independence & their liberty, to the wisdom of descrying in the minute tax of 3 pence on tea, the magnitude of the evil comprised in the precedent. Let them exert the same wisdom, in watching against every evil lurking under plausible disguises, and growing up from small beginnings."
--James Madison

Three cents per pound of tea was the lowest tea tax in the British Empire at that time. In the American Plantations as we were called in the Act, tea was sold at a lower price than in London. This was by design. The colonies had argued that we were not legally required to pay any taxes levied by the Parliament in London (this is historically correct, we had the same type of charter to form legislature, granted by the king that formed the Parliament in London). So the price of tea was cut below market rates and the tax was reduced to 3 pence per pound from 2 schillings 6 pence per pound for tea delivered to colonial ports. The intent was to make tea so inexpensive and the tax so low that the colonists would just go along and pay it.

To put this into prespective I am brewing a cup of Lapsong Souchong. This is a fairly expensive tea at $35.65/lb. I doubt that in modern terms the tax would amount to more than 25 cents American. There was a principle at stake, and the colonists were not going to give into incremental taxes or incremental loss of their liberty. One can only wonder what happened to their offspring.

7/06/2010

Prof Hale posted about problems with my blog. I'm glad he did. I had been having problems getting my page to load for sometime. I had attributed it to ISP problems I'd been having so I didn't make the connection that it might be a larger problem.

If you've been having problems getting this to load or with making comments, please let me know. I just eliminated a link from the template that had been causing some stalling on my end. This seems to be helping but there may be other issues that I'm not aware of. If there are template changes that would speed things up please feel free to make suggestions about that as well.

VOX has a great little feature where all the archives are in a drop down menu. If anyone knows the code for doing that, I'd love to give it a try.